| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Turning the other cheek; is it obligatory, no ifs, no buts? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 (1,430 Views) | |
| OsullivanB | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:22 Post #61 |
|
The Albigensian Crusade was very simply teaching in action. There was no division between the two. They were inseparable, like Mairtin and Clare. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:30 Post #62 |
![]()
Administrator
|
If my neighbour kicks my head in I am duty bound to notify police, for the future protection of myself and others, and the criminal being offered assistance, to reform. Turning the other cheek boils down to my duty to assist that criminal if I learn that he is in need. If at some later stage I see him collapse with a heart attack, I must not take the attitude that I have a chance to get my own back. I must send for an ambulance, and if able give first aid. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:31 Post #63 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
I have done so, here, where I quoted the paragraphs just prior to the ones you have quoted. Both sections demonstrate that turning the other cheek admits of exceptions, ifs, and buts. Note 2265 again:
and 2306:
Edited by Clare, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:39.
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:41 Post #64 |
|
I'm really distressed to hear you coming out with that sort of claptrap which is the sort of thing that I expect from the likes of Dan Browne, not from somebody who professes to understand the role of Tradition in the Church. If you genuinely want to understand how the Bible as we know it came to be assembled, then I suggest you read Heresy* by Alister McGrath - don't let yourself be out off by the fact that he's a Protestant theologian, he is one of the best Christian writers around and I have found nothing in his works that is in any way offensive or contradictory to Catholicism. Whilst the origins of the Bible is not the main theme of the book, he does give it extensive coverage as part of the wider point that Christians during the first 3 centuriesdid not need or depend on written accounts, they were already intimately familiar - far more than we generally are - with the events of Christ's life and with His teachings; the assembly of the Bible as we know it was not a case of selecting from competing accounts, it was a case of the Church becoming so large that some form of written account was deemed necessary for the rapidly growing body of followers; it led to the Church leaders selecting those writings that best expressed the Christian Faith and the legacy of Christ as it was already thoroughly understood throughout the Church, it was certainly not a case of then trying create something new or trying to destroy accounts they did not like. --------------------------------- (* A thoroughly fascinating book which I'll try to find time to post about at some stage) |
![]() |
|
| Peter | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:44 Post #65 |
|
Dear OSB, of course it's great to have a forum! I very much look forward to contributing my little snippets from time to time and I enjoy reading other postings on the myriad of threads that are contained herein. I think good an honest debate is refreshing but any debate should, in my view, be educational for all who take part. Sadly, for me at least, this one has lost all semblance of reasoned argument primarily because of a couple of the protagonists that are involved are hell bent on winning a particular argument regardless of the truth and what is there to learn in that! For debate to ensue properly, ego's should be kept in check at all times!! Also, emails can look abrupt at times, even rude, when the writer has not intended that to be the case. Debate by all means, that's why we're all here, but do it with a view to learning and not simply to win an argument at all costs. Anyway, I intend to turn the other cheek now and will post no more on this particular thread. Good wishes Peter |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:49 Post #66 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:54 Post #67 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I made post No 62 in the hope of widening the scope, and opening up group discussion. May I join in please? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:55 Post #68 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Yes, I'll buy that. Not bearing grudges and all. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:01 Post #69 |
|
I totally reject that, Pete. I cannot speak for Clare but, for various reasons, this is a subject of intense personal interest to me and I am very anxious to identify exactly where the truth does lie. With respect, it might be more useful if you would give us your personal views on the matter under discussion rather than making judgements about the motivation of those discussing it. Edit Can I also point out that when this topic started to dominate an unrelated thread, Clare and I voluntarily moved it to a thread of its own with the effect that those who don't find it interesting can easily avoid it. Edited by Mairtin, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:08.
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:02 Post #70 |
|
Where do you get that from, Rose? |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:15 Post #71 |
|
I posted whilst you were posting but I think it's worth letting the whole extract stand.
They also demonstrate that Church teaching on this is something that has changed over time and is therefore presumably open to further change. |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:20 Post #72 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Church teaching hasn't changed. What has changed is, for example, that modern methods of warfare make it nigh on impossible for a war these days to be just. Edited by Clare, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:20.
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:33 Post #73 |
![]()
Administrator
|
From my conscience, formed initially at my mother's knee. I have not read a single Church document about the subject and feel no need to. Ir is glaringly obvious that retaliation breeds violence and hatred. Christ told us what will happen if we do not forgive. On this particular point the guidance given in the Gospels suffices for me, some feel the urge to delve deeper, fair enough. Edited by Rose of York, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:38.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:51 Post #74 |
|
The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not condemn wholesale carnage and even quotes the story of the sons of Levi in defence of it. The CCC states 2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." As far as I am aware, there was never any Church condemnation of events such as the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; I'd like to think that such actions would be unequivocally condemned nowadays. As would be the likes of the Albigensian Crusade referred to by OsB. That is a radical change. There are also other changes e.g. in regard to capital punishment. |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 14:32 Post #75 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
I don't think the Church condoned those bombings either. I guess the Popes in those days did not go in for making statements of the obvious whenever something terrible happened. Nowadays, every time there is a disaster or an atrocity, statements are expected.
Which is still not condemned outright. So, no change. It is still allowed. Circumstances about its appropriateness may have changed, but that it is allowed in principle has not. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:54 PM Jul 11